Nav: Home

Donald or Hillary? Why listening to them makes a difference to voters

October 05, 2016

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY'S HAAS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS--What humanizes Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton more: hearing them speak or reading their opinions? A new study found that people who watch or listen to those with opposing opinions, instead of reading what they say, find them more thoughtful, competent, and rational--and more human.

The study, "The Humanizing Voice: Speech Can Reveal, and Text Conceal, The Presence of a Thoughtful Mind in The Midst of Disagreement," is the work of Juliana Schroeder, an assistant professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, who studies how different communication mediums influence people's beliefs about a communicator. Her co-authors are Michael Kardas and Nicholas Epley, both of the University of Chicago.

"Voice and visual cues imbue the speaker with thoughts and feelings and make them seem more mindful," says Schroeder. "In contrast, when reading someone's opinion on a piece of paper, the communicator's thoughtfulness is not as apparent."

In the first experiment, 322 participants watched, listened, or read one of six communicators' opinions about controversial political and social topics--war, abortion, and music--that they either supported or opposed. Participants dehumanized the communicators with whom they disagreed more than those with whom they agreed; however this tendency diminished when they heard the same opinion via voice rather than via the transcribed speech.

A second experiment tested whether the same effect held true for communicators' own written speech. Eight communicators discussed which candidate they supported in the 2016 presidential election on videotape and in writing. A group of 575 participants observed the opinions in four formats--video, audio, transcript, and written text--and rated each presenter. Once again, observers dehumanized communicators with differing political beliefs, but their responses were more favorable when they saw or heard the speech being presented than when they read the speech.

The results were consistent whether listening to male or female voices.

"Giving the opposition a voice, literally, enables partisans to recognize a difference in beliefs between two minds and may reduce the negative perceptions that lead to conflict," says Schroeder.

Similarly, in their paper, "Mistaking Minds and Machines: How Speech Affects Dehumanization and Anthropomorphism," recently published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, Schroeder and Epley found further evidence of the humanizing effect.

Three experiments found that text communication makes the communicator seem less likely to be genuinely human, perhaps computer-generated, whether the text is generated from an actual human or a computer.

In a fourth experiment, studying the varied nuances or cues of the human voice--tone, pace, pitch, and volume--helps explain why speech is humanizing. Actors delivered speeches (written by others) in varying voices, from a "mindful" voice infused with natural emotion and intonation to a "mindless" voice in which the words were read without feeling. When listening to the messages read without feeling, participants deemed the communicators as mindless, robotic, and not human; the same effect occurred when participants read the message themselves.

In today's text-driven world, Schroeder says her findings may be cause for concern.

"Our results suggest that if we communicate with others solely through text without hearing their voices, we may be more likely to dehumanize them and consider them relatively mindless. This is where conflicts such as online bullying may begin," says Schroeder. "In politics, hearing a politician who possesses a different agenda, rather than reading it, may help voters make more positive judgments about him or her."

University of California - Berkeley Haas School of Business

Related Speech Articles:

Speech and language deficits in children with autism may not cause tantrums
Speech or language impairments may not be the cause of more frequent tantrums in children with autism, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers.
What's coming next? Scientists identify how the brain predicts speech
A new study, publishing on April 25 in the open access journal PLOS Biology, has shed light on how the brain helps us to predict what is coming next in speech.
Whether our speech is fast or slow, we say about the same
Fast talkers tend to convey less information with each word and syntactic structure than slower-paced speakers, meaning that no matter our pace, we all say just about as much in a given time, a new study finds.
Do dogs of all ages respond equally to dog-directed speech?
People tend to talk to dogs as though they are human babies.
New approach may open up speech recognition to more languages
At the Neural Information Processing Systems conference this week, researchers from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) are presenting a new approach to training speech-recognition systems that doesn't depend on transcription.
Preschoolers' expectations shape how they interpret speech
When we listen to people speak, we aren't just hearing the sounds they're making, we're also actively trying to infer what they're going to say.
Genes for speech may not be limited to humans
Mice use language but not speech, which is thought to need biological functions particular to people.
Hearing with your eyes -- a Western style of speech perception
Which parts of a person's face do you look at when you listen them speak?
When do speech difficulties in children matter for literacy?
A new study found that speech difficulties are linked with difficulties in learning to read when children first start school, but these effects are no longer apparent at 8 years of age.
Male mice model human speech defect
Male mice carrying a mutation in the Foxp2 gene have difficulty putting the syllables of their ultrasonic wooing song into proper order.

Related Speech Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Digital Manipulation
Technology has reshaped our lives in amazing ways. But at what cost? This hour, TED speakers reveal how what we see, read, believe — even how we vote — can be manipulated by the technology we use. Guests include journalist Carole Cadwalladr, consumer advocate Finn Myrstad, writer and marketing professor Scott Galloway, behavioral designer Nir Eyal, and computer graphics researcher Doug Roble.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#530 Why Aren't We Dead Yet?
We only notice our immune systems when they aren't working properly, or when they're under attack. How does our immune system understand what bits of us are us, and what bits are invading germs and viruses? How different are human immune systems from the immune systems of other creatures? And is the immune system so often the target of sketchy medical advice? Those questions and more, this week in our conversation with author Idan Ben-Barak about his book "Why Aren't We Dead Yet?: The Survivor’s Guide to the Immune System".